Creationists

[daws101]

Yes Enzymes can be programmed that is evidence that suggests in the beginning they were programmed were not a product of naturalism. I don't buy things grow the ability over time to be a benefit to the organism through errors.

it suggests nothing of the kind....
your denial of fact proves what "you don't buy" is a product of religious indoctrination that you were programmed with and has no basis in reality.
benefits do not arise by errors ,they do however arise as functions or by products of funtions.

What fact am I denying daws ? daws according to you theory macroevolution happens through beneficial mutations,daws mutations are errors. What you said last was just jibberish. Daws do you understand what you're saying because all it shows you are ignorant of the theory you defend.

all of them! or do I need to make a list?
there is no macro evolution.
There is no such thing as micro or macro evolution in a scientific sense. They are both the exact same thing, one is just a matter of greater time. The terms were also manufactured in order to lend a false legitimacy to evolution deniers when it was even beyond their denialism to reject observed and proven instances of evolution happening. So instead of accepting a proven fact, the goalpost was moved.

 

[Hollie]

I read angry? What does that even mean?

You need to read the link you provided. It's there plain as day it acknowldeged a human soul.

You haven't disagreed with any of the questions. You answered it in your own strange way. The question about the human soul you said you didn't believe humans had a soul. It's your opinion that it's all in the mind.

I don't know about all that burning at the stake, possessions and the like. I asked a question, you answered it. Enough said.

You seem have lost track of your own argument. When you ask questions of " evolutionist idiots", it tends to suggest a certain anger and resentment.

If you read the article, you will notice that you're referring to an acknowledgement not made by the author regarding thus "soul", thing. Did you happen to notice that the drug ketamine can reproduce the NDE experience that is connected with this 'soul", thing?

Lastly, I think you should have noticed that I actually do disagree with your questions alluding to this "soul' you believe exists but cannot demonstrate in any meaningful way.

It would be helpful if you could link to any major teaching university hospital or research institute that could provide some data on the 'soul".

Yes I'm aware of who I asked questions to. And you obliged me with your answer.

I use the word idiot not out of anger or resentment but because it's an accurate description. IMO

I read the entire article. And it did acknowledge a soul. I'll concede they did their best to explain it away. But they managed to leave you with more questions than answers.

I've always been skeptical of skeptics.

Here's an interesting article from Psychology Today

Does The Soul Exist? Evidence Says ‘Yes’...New scientific theory recognizes life’s spiritual dimension

Fact is, you cannot admit to there being a soul because then you would have to then acknowledge a higher power.

I have noticed that Christians, as a result of their self-assigned higher moral status will relegate infidels to idiot status. Unfortunately, the Christian anger and resentment is largely the result of an inability to defend their claims to gawds.

As I was aware, there are no studies performed by any of the leading university hospitals leading to a conclusion of the "soul". Once again, we're left with Christians making claims to the existence of metaphysical, mystical 'souls", gawds, demons, spirits, etc.

As far as admitting to the existence of some higher power, I can only advise that the assignment of whatever higher power you're alluding to is, with virtual exclusivity, a function of ones geographic place of birth.

We, (those not addled by the compulsive effects of the majority religion or family religion of our upbringing), are free to make comparative judgements about religion. Quite clearly, they all suffer from the same fatal flaw: it's all hearsay evidence. The alleged "relative strength" of various claimants as to what any of the human inventions of gawds really want is merely a matter of choosing to accept the stories (tales and fables) of some claimants in deference to others. It's remarkable that you will bicker about - and even defend - such hearsay claims of alleged communications from a supernatural entity when we know that the book which recites these claims suffers from so many obvious flaws of unknown authorship and dubious heritage.

Quite clearly, It's all legend building. But here is where you need to think it through - we can see clearly defined patterns of playing upon fears and emotions within the text of the bibles. When you spend just a bit of energy to connect the dots surrounding the writings of the men who authored the various bibles, connecting those dots will show patterns that suddenly break to form oblique angles.

Kings, rulers, pharaohs and "scholars" etc made use of the idea of instilling fear by claiming for themselves a special ability to receive messages or to translate the true meaning from a divine supernatural ruler, even though the best evidence for their existence was simply the fact that there were some things we didn't understand. Societies grew, codified rituals, passed on these ideas from parent to child with severe warnings for not believing - such as eternal burning and torment and unrealistic 'carrots' for believing e.g an eternity of sensual gratification and so giant structures and substructures grew which evolved (yes, evolved) into the religions we see today.

Monotheism is currently in vogue for religions. Multi-god religions have been replaced by one-stop-shopping gswds of convenience.

Such deistic minimalism is wrong, of course, and it will eventually go out of fashion. Whatever replaces it will be wrong as well.

You can always depend on religion that way. Rocks of Ages are subject to plate tectonics.

 

[daws101]

Pure fantasy here daws it does not stand on merits but one's imagination.

how'd I know you'd say that.....false as it is...

Do you understand what conjecture is daws ?

yes I do ...you on the other hand believe that noah's ark is fact....do I need to say more.?

 

[daws101]

Nature is the product of the designer. What put everything in to motion daws ?

in your mind that may be true but in reality there is no "who" in nature.
so once again pull yourhead out of your ass.

Daws did you read what was wrote ? The question was daws,what put everything in to motion ?

that's funny coming from a proven illterate!
ther are two parts to your statement.
the first is an unprovable erroneous declarative...
the second part is not an honest question .
it's invalid because of the first statement,which infers there must be a designer
my answer stands.

 

[daws101]

I read angry? What does that even mean?

You need to read the link you provided. It's there plain as day it acknowldeged a human soul.

You haven't disagreed with any of the questions. You answered it in your own strange way. The question about the human soul you said you didn't believe humans had a soul. It's your opinion that it's all in the mind.

I don't know about all that burning at the stake, possessions and the like. I asked a question, you answered it. Enough said.

You seem have lost track of your own argument. When you ask questions of " evolutionist idiots", it tends to suggest a certain anger and resentment.

If you read the article, you will notice that you're referring to an acknowledgement not made by the author regarding thus "soul", thing. Did you happen to notice that the drug ketamine can reproduce the NDE experience that is connected with this 'soul", thing?

Lastly, I think you should have noticed that I actually do disagree with your questions alluding to this "soul' you believe exists but cannot demonstrate in any meaningful way.

It would be helpful if you could link to any major teaching university hospital or research institute that could provide some data on the 'soul".

Yes I'm aware of who I asked questions to. And you obliged me with your answer.

I use the word idiot not out of anger or resentment but because it's an accurate description. IMO

I read the entire article. And it did acknowledge a soul. I'll concede they did their best to explain it away. But they managed to leave you with more questions than answers.

I've always been skeptical of skeptics.

Here's an interesting article from Psychology Today

Does The Soul Exist? Evidence Says ‘Yes’...New scientific theory recognizes life’s spiritual dimension

Fact is, you cannot admit to there being a soul because then you would have to then acknowledge a higher power.

really i just finished reading that article ,no where in it does it mention the need to believe in a higher power to acknowledge that souls exist

 

[daws101]

Daws the scientists that have altered the functions of Enzymes you don't consider intelligent ?

How bout the ones that have developed forms of communication ?

more proof you're an illiterate! what the scientists did is no proof that an other intelligence did any thing.
the scientists intelligence is HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. YOU IGNORANT FUCK.

That is a good description of yourself.

So are you suggesting that these Enzymes just entered into a cell with the purpose of identifying errors during DNA replication and fixing most of these errors by chance ? Daws what would happen to all living organisms that lacked these enzymes to repair errors during DNA replication ?

dodge


1

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You seem have lost track of your own argument. When you ask questions of " evolutionist idiots", it tends to suggest a certain anger and resentment.

If you read the article, you will notice that you're referring to an acknowledgement not made by the author regarding thus "soul", thing. Did you happen to notice that the drug ketamine can reproduce the NDE experience that is connected with this 'soul", thing?

Lastly, I think you should have noticed that I actually do disagree with your questions alluding to this "soul' you believe exists but cannot demonstrate in any meaningful way.

It would be helpful if you could link to any major teaching university hospital or research institute that could provide some data on the 'soul".

Yes I'm aware of who I asked questions to. And you obliged me with your answer.

I use the word idiot not out of anger or resentment but because it's an accurate description. IMO

I read the entire article. And it did acknowledge a soul. I'll concede they did their best to explain it away. But they managed to leave you with more questions than answers.

I've always been skeptical of skeptics.

Here's an interesting article from Psychology Today

Does The Soul Exist? Evidence Says ‘Yes’...New scientific theory recognizes life’s spiritual dimension

Fact is, you cannot admit to there being a soul because then you would have to then acknowledge a higher power.

I have noticed that Christians, as a result of their self-assigned higher moral status will relegate infidels to idiot status. Unfortunately, the Christian anger and resentment is largely the result of an inability to defend their claims to gawds.

As I was aware, there are no studies performed by any of the leading university hospitals leading to a conclusion of the "soul". Once again, we're left with Christians making claims to the existence of metaphysical, mystical 'souls", gawds, demons, spirits, etc.

As far as admitting to the existence of some higher power, I can only advise that the assignment of whatever higher power you're alluding to is, with virtual exclusivity, a function of ones geographic place of birth.

We, (those not addled by the compulsive effects of the majority religion or family religion of our upbringing), are free to make comparative judgements about religion. Quite clearly, they all suffer from the same fatal flaw: it's all hearsay evidence. The alleged "relative strength" of various claimants as to what any of the human inventions of gawds really want is merely a matter of choosing to accept the stories (tales and fables) of some claimants in deference to others. It's remarkable that you will bicker about - and even defend - such hearsay claims of alleged communications from a supernatural entity when we know that the book which recites these claims suffers from so many obvious flaws of unknown authorship and dubious heritage.

Quite clearly, It's all legend building. But here is where you need to think it through - we can see clearly defined patterns of playing upon fears and emotions within the text of the bibles. When you spend just a bit of energy to connect the dots surrounding the writings of the men who authored the various bibles, connecting those dots will show patterns that suddenly break to form oblique angles.

Kings, rulers, pharaohs and "scholars" etc made use of the idea of instilling fear by claiming for themselves a special ability to receive messages or to translate the true meaning from a divine supernatural ruler, even though the best evidence for their existence was simply the fact that there were some things we didn't understand. Societies grew, codified rituals, passed on these ideas from parent to child with severe warnings for not believing - such as eternal burning and torment and unrealistic 'carrots' for believing e.g an eternity of sensual gratification and so giant structures and substructures grew which evolved (yes, evolved) into the religions we see today.

Monotheism is currently in vogue for religions. Multi-god religions have been replaced by one-stop-shopping gswds of convenience.

Such deistic minimalism is wrong, of course, and it will eventually go out of fashion. Whatever replaces it will be wrong as well.

You can always depend on religion that way. Rocks of Ages are subject to plate tectonics.

Your free to find whatever reasoning you want as to why I believe you're an idiot. Although it's not as complicated as you make it sound. And anger nor resentment has anything to do with it. Sorry.

There are scientific theories regarding the soul but you choose to ignore them. Which is quite odd since you except the theory of evolution. But que sera.

I've come to realize one thing while scanning your rant. You're really not as intelligent as you pretend. Of course that's just my opinion. Not subject to debate.

I pity people like. In a sadistic way I wish I could be there the moment you pass from this world. Just to see the look on your face the moment you realize that there is indeed a God and He is sending you to eternal damnation. I know it's not very Christian of me to wish that. But... oh well.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You seem have lost track of your own argument. When you ask questions of " evolutionist idiots", it tends to suggest a certain anger and resentment.

If you read the article, you will notice that you're referring to an acknowledgement not made by the author regarding thus "soul", thing. Did you happen to notice that the drug ketamine can reproduce the NDE experience that is connected with this 'soul", thing?

Lastly, I think you should have noticed that I actually do disagree with your questions alluding to this "soul' you believe exists but cannot demonstrate in any meaningful way.

It would be helpful if you could link to any major teaching university hospital or research institute that could provide some data on the 'soul".

Yes I'm aware of who I asked questions to. And you obliged me with your answer.

I use the word idiot not out of anger or resentment but because it's an accurate description. IMO

I read the entire article. And it did acknowledge a soul. I'll concede they did their best to explain it away. But they managed to leave you with more questions than answers.

I've always been skeptical of skeptics.

Here's an interesting article from Psychology Today

Does The Soul Exist? Evidence Says ‘Yes’...New scientific theory recognizes life’s spiritual dimension

Fact is, you cannot admit to there being a soul because then you would have to then acknowledge a higher power.

really i just finished reading that article ,no where in it does it mention the need to believe in a higher power to acknowledge that souls exist

Shhhh Hollie doesn't know that.

 

[Hollie]

Yes I'm aware of who I asked questions to. And you obliged me with your answer.

I use the word idiot not out of anger or resentment but because it's an accurate description. IMO

I read the entire article. And it did acknowledge a soul. I'll concede they did their best to explain it away. But they managed to leave you with more questions than answers.

I've always been skeptical of skeptics.

Here's an interesting article from Psychology Today

Does The Soul Exist? Evidence Says ‘Yes’...New scientific theory recognizes life’s spiritual dimension

Fact is, you cannot admit to there being a soul because then you would have to then acknowledge a higher power.

I have noticed that Christians, as a result of their self-assigned higher moral status will relegate infidels to idiot status. Unfortunately, the Christian anger and resentment is largely the result of an inability to defend their claims to gawds.

As I was aware, there are no studies performed by any of the leading university hospitals leading to a conclusion of the "soul". Once again, we're left with Christians making claims to the existence of metaphysical, mystical 'souls", gawds, demons, spirits, etc.

As far as admitting to the existence of some higher power, I can only advise that the assignment of whatever higher power you're alluding to is, with virtual exclusivity, a function of ones geographic place of birth.

We, (those not addled by the compulsive effects of the majority religion or family religion of our upbringing), are free to make comparative judgements about religion. Quite clearly, they all suffer from the same fatal flaw: it's all hearsay evidence. The alleged "relative strength" of various claimants as to what any of the human inventions of gawds really want is merely a matter of choosing to accept the stories (tales and fables) of some claimants in deference to others. It's remarkable that you will bicker about - and even defend - such hearsay claims of alleged communications from a supernatural entity when we know that the book which recites these claims suffers from so many obvious flaws of unknown authorship and dubious heritage.

Quite clearly, It's all legend building. But here is where you need to think it through - we can see clearly defined patterns of playing upon fears and emotions within the text of the bibles. When you spend just a bit of energy to connect the dots surrounding the writings of the men who authored the various bibles, connecting those dots will show patterns that suddenly break to form oblique angles.

Kings, rulers, pharaohs and "scholars" etc made use of the idea of instilling fear by claiming for themselves a special ability to receive messages or to translate the true meaning from a divine supernatural ruler, even though the best evidence for their existence was simply the fact that there were some things we didn't understand. Societies grew, codified rituals, passed on these ideas from parent to child with severe warnings for not believing - such as eternal burning and torment and unrealistic 'carrots' for believing e.g an eternity of sensual gratification and so giant structures and substructures grew which evolved (yes, evolved) into the religions we see today.

Monotheism is currently in vogue for religions. Multi-god religions have been replaced by one-stop-shopping gswds of convenience.

Such deistic minimalism is wrong, of course, and it will eventually go out of fashion. Whatever replaces it will be wrong as well.

You can always depend on religion that way. Rocks of Ages are subject to plate tectonics.

Your free to find whatever reasoning you want as to why I believe you're an idiot. Although it's not as complicated as you make it sound. And anger nor resentment has anything to do with it. Sorry.

There are scientific theories regarding the soul but you choose to ignore them. Which is quite odd since you except the theory of evolution. But que sera.

I've come to realize one thing while scanning your rant. You're really not as intelligent as you pretend. Of course that's just my opinion. Not subject to debate.

I pity people like. In a sadistic way I wish I could be there the moment you pass from this world. Just to see the look on your face the moment you realize that there is indeed a God and He is sending you to eternal damnation. I know it's not very Christian of me to wish that. But... oh well.

There's no reason to pity me.

I do, however, feel sorry for you. Your need to use your gawds to threaten people relegates you to being just another angry Christian who is consumed by hate. It's pretty clear that your wish for "him" to send me to eternal damnation is more a reflection of your own self-hate, insecurity and inability to resolve your seething hatred for those who reject your appeals to fear and ignorance. You seem to approach your gawds as they are some type of cosmic arcade fortune telling machine. Do you think that your gawds will hear and oblige your calls to condemn the non-believers? Are you the gawds mafioso enforcers?

Surprisingly, I find it to be very Christian of you to wish eternal damnation on me. Your attitudes are largely in concert with historical christianity and its history of violence and intolerance toward non-Christians.

 

[daws101]

Well it took you 13 hours to respond. I was actually being sarcastic to make a point about the silliness of you inferring I was using a work as an excuse to not engage in an argument with you. Obviously you were asleep so you couldn't respond, but I used your silly trick back on you to make it look like you were avoiding responding because you didn't have an answer. Basically, you aren't fooling anyone.

I post when i want to, your Tom Foolery has zero to do with it.

HAD NO ANSWER TO WHAT?
The rest is typical detective douche bag nonsense!


especialy this: "Basically, you aren't fooling anyone."- ur aka detective douche bag .
brilliant statement of the obvious...I have never attempted to fool anyone, so whatever you're trying and failing to insinuate is you committing character suicide

I think you missed the post about how you were manipulated to prove a point. The power of suggestion obviously works on you because I used the word "douche bag" one time and you have repeated it since then over and over. Why not try to dispense with the nonsense and have an adult conversation about science and religion?

another false statement, laughable too, you've manipulated nobody.
as always you've falsely assumed that you are somehow brighter than all other posters.
your failed attempts at manipulation are obvious to everyone but you.
as to your usage of the phrase "douche bag" It was I, who manipulated you.
all it took was a few remarks about your questionable police service and you went bat shit.
just as I knew you would .

I say bat shit because for someone(you) who adamantly denies using profanity or pejoratives ,that's a fairly nasty one.
I did not start using the phrase because of you imaginary mastery of the power of suggestion, it did inspire me to give you a new name , let's face it "Ultimate Reality" is extremely pompous and melodramatic name.
detective douche bag is far closer to your INTERNET personality then UR.
it's perfect from a comedic POV.
to finish all of your resent post concerning your observations and moral compass bullshit are in fact failed attempts to simultaneously take credit and absolve yourself of taking responsibly for your own actions.

 

[daws101]

Yes I'm aware of who I asked questions to. And you obliged me with your answer.

I use the word idiot not out of anger or resentment but because it's an accurate description. IMO

I read the entire article. And it did acknowledge a soul. I'll concede they did their best to explain it away. But they managed to leave you with more questions than answers.

I've always been skeptical of skeptics.

Here's an interesting article from Psychology Today

Does The Soul Exist? Evidence Says ‘Yes’...New scientific theory recognizes life’s spiritual dimension

Fact is, you cannot admit to there being a soul because then you would have to then acknowledge a higher power.

really i just finished reading that article ,no where in it does it mention the need to believe in a higher power to acknowledge that souls exist

Shhhh Hollie doesn't know that.

so you lied? ...how christian of you!

 

[Hollie]

Yes I'm aware of who I asked questions to. And you obliged me with your answer.

I use the word idiot not out of anger or resentment but because it's an accurate description. IMO

I read the entire article. And it did acknowledge a soul. I'll concede they did their best to explain it away. But they managed to leave you with more questions than answers.

I've always been skeptical of skeptics.

Here's an interesting article from Psychology Today

Does The Soul Exist? Evidence Says ‘Yes’...New scientific theory recognizes life’s spiritual dimension

Fact is, you cannot admit to there being a soul because then you would have to then acknowledge a higher power.

really i just finished reading that article ,no where in it does it mention the need to believe in a higher power to acknowledge that souls exist

Shhhh Hollie doesn't know that.

So show me where anyone has identified this "soul".

 

[daws101]

Who said "it is not okay"? Do whatever you want, but you will reap the consequences. Likewise, for us, or anybody. In case you haven't noticed, we are split into two teams. Usually the way it works when you are on teams, is you stick up for your teammates, while trying to beat the other team. I haven't seen you reprimand your teammates YWC and Lonestar for their behavior, which at times is sub-par. You try to make this a lovefest, where we all just "love" each other, but then you try to argue with us. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want to end this discussion and make up and be friends, cool. Let's do it. But you can't want both. We are in a debate, a fight, so stop expecting niceties like a little child, and then attributing foul play to a lower moral constitution. It's such a fucking copout and excuse for you to feel superior to atheists. It is, in other words, a display of pure ego. This is the problem with christianity, it leads to the most unenlightened individuals.

You attacked Daws for his sexuality? Did I see that right?That's disgusting behavior on your part, UR, so don't sit here and try and talk about how 'materialists" are morally inferior. It is so vapid. I find it funny that you mimic our behavior, and then judge us for our behavior, but not your own. That's called being a hypocrite.

...I'm just the same on line as in real life. to say anything else would be disingenuous...

You have proven yourself to be disingenuous repeatedly. All you have is internet bravado. I seriously doubt you've ever been in a real confrontation that didn't involve hiding behind a keyboard.

and as usual you'd be totally wrong.

 

[daws101]

Sorry I don't dance when my opponents are clearly inferior.

Your self assessed superiority is contradicted by your inability to further any meaningful dialogue. I see nothing in the Christian creationist argument that is not rife with fallacious analogies, bad examples and appeals to ignorance, fear and superstition. It's remarkable how you consider cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya as making you superior but I suppose that delusions of supermagical, angry gawds is just one more symptom of the pathology of Christian creationism.

Therein lies the danger. The point being, Christian creationism does not allow for the growth of knowledge. The fundies in this thread have made it clear that from a fundamentalist Christian point of view, humans are inherently evil, base, greedy, etc. That is a self-fulfilling speculation, and given the fact that we continue to survive, to show compassion and to further the benefits of cooperation, the fundie Christian worldview is not empirically true. And because it's not true -- what purpose does the fundie Christian promotion of hate and derision serve? Is it retrograde and superfluous? Yes, of course it is.

Assuming that evil acts are bourne out of the corruption of religion, (or more likely, the influence of religion), is religion worth the price is extracts on human development?

My scientific arguments are not faith based they are fact based.

you just keep telling yourself that

 

[daws101]

It is true we have seen variations within a family that is it and there is simple asnwer for this to which I have answered. Many creatures have gone extinct does not mean they were organisms that evolved it just shows they once existed. By your own theory these so call tranitional fossils why did they go extinct if by your theory they were better adapted ?

This question has gone with no explanation from your side.

Because the theory goes against what the bible teaches. If this process of evolution was used by God I think he would provided some type of explanation of the process in the bible. Why do you guys throw this question out there when you're totally against the thought of design ? That has been what has been demonstrated throughout this thread.

Your comments depict a typical lack of knowledge regarding the science of evolution or more likely, a willful misrepresentation of what you choose to misrepresent.

Your comments are in concert with what is barfed out of creationist ministries. Such allegiance to lies and falsehoods calls into question your personal credibility.

I asked you for an example of your accusation.

then you asked for the wrong thing.
what hollie said is a statement of fact not an accusation.
an educated non paranoid person would know the difference.

 

[daws101]

It is true we have seen variations within a family that is it and there is simple asnwer for this to which I have answered. Many creatures have gone extinct does not mean they were organisms that evolved it just shows they once existed. By your own theory these so call tranitional fossils why did they go extinct if by your theory they were better adapted ?

This question has gone with no explanation from your side.

Because the theory goes against what the bible teaches. If this process of evolution was used by God I think he would provided some type of explanation of the process in the bible. Why do you guys throw this question out there when you're totally against the thought of design ? That has been what has been demonstrated throughout this thread.

So basically, because the bible doesn't say so. But the earth is round, and the bible doesn't say it is?
A lot of creatures went extinct because of nature changing or something like an asteroid... The most well adapted are still alive. Look, a baby starts out small and unable to talk and it evolves into a talking, thinking adult. Or, I used to eat meat, but my thinking evolved to a healthier lifestyle and I'll probably live longer than my siblings.

Btw, the bible isn't the word of god, it's the words of men.

You are wrong the earth was described as a circle in the bible. That is only theory that dinosaurs went extinct from a giant meteor. That is not evolution a child forming in the womb and becoming an intelligent thinking adult. That is a natural process that was put into motion and that person runs it's course. If anything it would be devolution because the person reaches a certain point then they eventually wear out and die.

that's true but a circle is not a sphere so the biblical description is inaccurate.
the rest of your post is creationist bullshit .

 

[daws101]

You are wrong the earth was described as a circle in the bible. That is only theory that dinosaurs went extinct from a giant meteor. That is not evolution a child forming in the womb and becoming an intelligent thinking adult. That is a natural process that was put into motion and that person runs it's course. If anything it would be devolution because the person reaches a certain point then they eventually wear out and die.

Dinosaurs could not have faced extinction in the distant past. Ken Ham's creation museum depicts children in buckskin outfits frollicking with those dinosaurs. It really calls into question all of science. Thank the gawds for Ken Ham.

And what about all those dinosaurs on the Ark?

Does ken ham represent and speak for all who believe in a creator ?

only if the believers are ignorant suckers.
KEN ham like you has no right to speak for any one but himself.
I know a lot of christians who know he's full of shit.

 

[newpolitics]

Hollie it is time for your side to put up or shut up.

We have put up, for the last 150 years. Your side, however, has nothing but "faith." How cute.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I have noticed that Christians, as a result of their self-assigned higher moral status will relegate infidels to idiot status. Unfortunately, the Christian anger and resentment is largely the result of an inability to defend their claims to gawds.

As I was aware, there are no studies performed by any of the leading university hospitals leading to a conclusion of the "soul". Once again, we're left with Christians making claims to the existence of metaphysical, mystical 'souls", gawds, demons, spirits, etc.

As far as admitting to the existence of some higher power, I can only advise that the assignment of whatever higher power you're alluding to is, with virtual exclusivity, a function of ones geographic place of birth.

We, (those not addled by the compulsive effects of the majority religion or family religion of our upbringing), are free to make comparative judgements about religion. Quite clearly, they all suffer from the same fatal flaw: it's all hearsay evidence. The alleged "relative strength" of various claimants as to what any of the human inventions of gawds really want is merely a matter of choosing to accept the stories (tales and fables) of some claimants in deference to others. It's remarkable that you will bicker about - and even defend - such hearsay claims of alleged communications from a supernatural entity when we know that the book which recites these claims suffers from so many obvious flaws of unknown authorship and dubious heritage.

Quite clearly, It's all legend building. But here is where you need to think it through - we can see clearly defined patterns of playing upon fears and emotions within the text of the bibles. When you spend just a bit of energy to connect the dots surrounding the writings of the men who authored the various bibles, connecting those dots will show patterns that suddenly break to form oblique angles.

Kings, rulers, pharaohs and "scholars" etc made use of the idea of instilling fear by claiming for themselves a special ability to receive messages or to translate the true meaning from a divine supernatural ruler, even though the best evidence for their existence was simply the fact that there were some things we didn't understand. Societies grew, codified rituals, passed on these ideas from parent to child with severe warnings for not believing - such as eternal burning and torment and unrealistic 'carrots' for believing e.g an eternity of sensual gratification and so giant structures and substructures grew which evolved (yes, evolved) into the religions we see today.

Monotheism is currently in vogue for religions. Multi-god religions have been replaced by one-stop-shopping gswds of convenience.

Such deistic minimalism is wrong, of course, and it will eventually go out of fashion. Whatever replaces it will be wrong as well.

You can always depend on religion that way. Rocks of Ages are subject to plate tectonics.

Your free to find whatever reasoning you want as to why I believe you're an idiot. Although it's not as complicated as you make it sound. And anger nor resentment has anything to do with it. Sorry.

There are scientific theories regarding the soul but you choose to ignore them. Which is quite odd since you except the theory of evolution. But que sera.

I've come to realize one thing while scanning your rant. You're really not as intelligent as you pretend. Of course that's just my opinion. Not subject to debate.

I pity people like. In a sadistic way I wish I could be there the moment you pass from this world. Just to see the look on your face the moment you realize that there is indeed a God and He is sending you to eternal damnation. I know it's not very Christian of me to wish that. But... oh well.

There's no reason to pity me.

I do, however, feel sorry for you. Your need to use your gawds to threaten people relegates you to being just another angry Christian who is consumed by hate. It's pretty clear that your wish for "him" to send me to eternal damnation is more a reflection of your own self-hate, insecurity and inability to resolve your seething hatred for those who reject your appeals to fear and ignorance. You seem to approach your gawds as they are some type of cosmic arcade fortune telling machine. Do you think that your gawds will hear and oblige your calls to condemn the non-believers? Are you the gawds mafioso enforcers?

Surprisingly, I find it to be very Christian of you to wish eternal damnation on me. Your attitudes are largely in concert with historical christianity and its history of violence and intolerance toward non-Christians.

Yes I believe there is. And I do.

I haven't threatened anyone. If you feel threatened by anything I've written .... well...that's your cross to bear.

My wish isn't for Him to send you anywhere. My wish is to be present when he does. Reading comprehension seems difficult for you.

Furthermore it isn't my call to condemn non-believers to hell, God made that call.

And again, I didn't wish eternal damnation on you and whether you believe it or not... I am not angry.

Historical intolerance? You have Christians confused with muslims. I'll concede that during the crusades Christians did kick some butt. But it was caused in the 1st crusade by 3000 Christians being massacred. And the crusades ended around 750 years ago.

Can you cite any recent events that shows Christian intolerance, let's say on the scale of muslim intolerance?

 

[Youwerecreated]

it suggests nothing of the kind....
your denial of fact proves what "you don't buy" is a product of religious indoctrination that you were programmed with and has no basis in reality.
benefits do not arise by errors ,they do however arise as functions or by products of funtions.

What fact am I denying daws ? daws according to you theory macroevolution happens through beneficial mutations,daws mutations are errors. What you said last was just jibberish. Daws do you understand what you're saying because all it shows you are ignorant of the theory you defend.

all of them! or do I need to make a list?
there is no macro evolution.
There is no such thing as micro or macro evolution in a scientific sense. They are both the exact same thing, one is just a matter of greater time. The terms were also manufactured in order to lend a false legitimacy to evolution deniers when it was even beyond their denialism to reject observed and proven instances of evolution happening. So instead of accepting a proven fact, the goalpost was moved.

Wrong,there has never been any case of observed macroevolution. They are not the same thing micro and macro evolution. Really what has beeen observed was micro adaptations. Microadaptations have been extrapolated from as evidence for macro evolution.